Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday February 27, 2006 @01:46PM
from the eventually-part-of-my-paycheck-will-just-go-to-them dept.

CRIA Watcher writes "The Canadian Copyright Board has just announced that it is bringing back the tax on blank CDs, called the private copying levy, in 2007. Michael Geist demonstrates how the tax has created a huge distortion in the retail price of blank media on his blog with as much as 70 percent of the purchase price now heading directly to the music industry."

This is a load of crap, I'm sick and tired of paying a fortune for blank CDR's while the Canadian Recording industry is out to call everyone a criminal and lobbying to cripple our rights by introducing ludicris laws to ruin what us Canadians take for granted. Either fuckoff trying to take our rights away, or do away with this stupid tax!

On the other hand, if they kept the tax and at the same time passed a law (or had the courts rule) that to penalize people for copying music files while they're paying the tax would be double jeapordy for the same crime, then this could actually be rather nice.

You're paying what is basically a fine for what they assume is breaking the law; if they sue you again, you're having to pay the same fine again. But, a poor choice of words, perhaps. Double payment, if you prefer.

No, you are paying for the security (and other) copies you might want to make on those CDs from original CDs (i.e. for whatever the "fair use" copying is allowed in your country). Call it the fair use tax if you will.

This tax has nothing to do with illegal copies (i.e. burning an ISO you just downloaded). That is a separate issue.

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

I know there used to be "special" CD-Rs for copying music (special only when looking at the price tag, mind you)

No, they weren't special `only when looking at the price tag'. They were special all the time -- just not very special. And at least here in the US, they're still available.

The audio CD-Rs have a bit set somewhere that audio equipment looks at before deciding if they'll record on this media. So if you have cd writer in your stereo, it probably will only work with audio CD-Rs. Of course, the audio CD-Rs cost more, and some equipment can be hacked to not require this bit to be set, or you can swap it with a data CD-R at the right time and things will work, etc.

The cd writer in your computer, on the other hand, has no such restriction, since it's meant to store data. Of course, you can also burn audio onto your data CD-R on your computer, and people do do this.

As for the law changing in Canada, I have no idea. In the US, I know that audio CD-Rs include a tax that goes to the RIAA or the artists or somebody, and data CD-Rs do not. More on the DAT tax here [brouhaha.com]. (It's called the DAT tax because it was originally written for DAT (4mm tapes) and is probably the #1 reason why we don't have consumer DAT audio drives in our stereos now.)

In any event, when I'm at Frys and I see somebody pick up a batch of Audio CD-Rs, I'll often ask them if they're going to burn them on a stereo component or a computer, and 95% of the time, the answer is `computer'. And then I tell them that they don't need the expensive audio CD-Rs -- the data ones will work just as well.

The DAT tax does have one good benefit though. From the article above --

It explicitly makes it legal (or more precisely, non-actionable) for you to copy audio works for your own use ( section 1008). That's right, it is now perfectly legitimate for you to borrow the latest Madonna album from a friend and make yourself a copy, despite the copyright. Pretty neat, huh?

Of course, this page was written pre-DMCA. I've no idea if the law has changed since.

Blank CDs are still useful when you want to give someone a large blob of data. I generally don't like to send more than a few tens of MBs over the Internet (less if the recipient is on dial-up). Burning a disk that you can give to someone and not worry about getting back is sometimes very convenient.

That's nice. I DO use CDs, because often I have less than 600MB of photos (that I own the copyright to under Canadian Law) that I want to give to someone else, but it's too much data to email (80MB tiffs).

Just because YOU don't use something does not mean that EVERYONE does not need it.

Then perhaps the online community needs to learn how to respect intellectual property holder's rights. I don;t give a rat's ass about your rights if you're going to violate mine, it's really as simple as that. You can rot in prison for al lI care, I have no sympathy for you.

Right now I can download music guilt-free because every time I buy a blank CD, I pay for music

Sounds good until, they charge 100% of the price, then 150%, then 200%, etc etc etc.

Once they have their foot in the door, it will be next to impossible to get them out. This only serves to set a dangerous precident, that is nothing but a slippery slope for consumers. It's afforable now, how about in 5 years? I'll guess they'll blame it on inflation, and you wont even remember why it costs 5x what it costs today.

I don't find this unfair at all. Having such a tax legitimizes free copying and distribution of copyrighted works on applicable CD-R media. If we had this in America, the amount of "pirated" music would skyrocket - since it would no longer be pirated, as a royalty had been paid.

What happens to business uses of blank media? Do you get a tax refund? Ie if your media is used for backup of your HD with no music or if you are using it in a corporation do you get a refund? Also can you take that tax as a deduction from your normal taxes?

Even if I set aside the flawed logic, why does the music biz get it all? What about other businesses that are hurt by "copying". Surely some of this money should go to software companies, as well as private media/content producers that distribute their work via CDs.

Even if I set aside the flawed logic, why does the music biz get it all? What about other businesses that are hurt by "copying". Surely some of this money should go to software companies, as well as private media/content producers that distribute their work via CDs.

Thanks for being on their side.

So, now the tax will go up another 50%.

This is proof that 2 rights don't make a left, but three do.

The government has no right or reason to insure or protect the profit of a privately owned business with tax or insu

People need to realize that blank CDs don't just grow on trees. In order to sell a blank CD, you have to take a regular CD and remove the content. It doesn't make sense to remove content people want, like software, so most blank CDs are originally Britney Spears or N'Sync CDs with the songs taken off. The music industry gets the money because only the music industry produces CDs with content so poor that it's worth paying a little to remove it and resell as a blank.

If, by "designed to reduce negative distorions of the market mechanism" you mean that the people who create taxes use some sort of vauge "public good" rhetoric to justify them, you are correct.But there is no reason to believe that any tax causes the market price of something to more accuratly reflect supply and demand, or consumption. Taxes are pretty much just a system for a government (or powerful lobby, such as the music industry, operating through the government) to get revenue... a politician isn't go

Canada's music industry now gets rich from blank media instead of music content

Obviously you do not appreciate the melodies of Avril Lavigne, the emotional maturity and unpretentiousness of Alanis Morrisette, the economy of expression of the Bare Naked Ladies, the understated phrasing of Céline Dion, or the raw production style of David Foster.

As an American, I was wondering if someone could clarify something on this law for me...

Since this tax goes to the recording industry to apparently make up for "lost sales due to copyright infringement"....where can independant Canadian artists who are not affiliated with the labels sign up to receive their cut of this tax? I mean...people use these blank CDs for things other than the music of the labels...

And if this tax applies to ALL CDRs, rather than just the music CDRs that nobody buys in America...how does a Canadian citizen dispute the tax on something they've never used (assuming of course they don't burn music to CDs?

And if this tax applies to ALL CDRs, rather than just the music CDRs that nobody buys in America...how does a Canadian citizen dispute the tax on something they've never used (assuming of course they don't burn music to CDs?

You don't. I don't get food stamps, a welfare check, my kids don't go to public schools (I don't have any), but I pay taxes that go into these programs. My real estate tax goes straight to the school district. I don't use that service.

The majority of my taxes go towards causes, programs, or institutions whose services I neither need nor want, and a handful to which I have serious ethical and/or moral objections. But there's no recourse. If I say all of this and want my taxes lowered or changed so I can keep more of my own money, I'm called greedy. When somebody else wants my money for some purpose, they're just needy.

You don't. I don't get food stamps, a welfare check, my kids don't go to public schools (I don't have any), but I pay taxes that go into these programs. My real estate tax goes straight to the school district. I don't use that service.

Don't forget that parents who send their kids to private schools can deduct the tuition and get their tax money back, since they're "relieving the burden on the public system" by sending their kids to private school.

I don't get food stamps, a welfare check, my kids don't go to public schools (I don't have any), but I pay taxes that go into these programs.

The programs you cite are elements of a public welfare system available to all citizens equally based on need. The argument of the grandparent and other posters is that the CD-R tax unfairly impacts the taxed (e.g. anyone not copying music industry copyrighted content) given its stated motives. Further, the distribution of the tax's proceeds is discriminatory against

So, let's get this straight. This tax starts from the assumption that you're copying CDs? Fine, I say. I'm sure Canada has "double jeapody" clauses in it legal code, so you can't be punished again for the same crime. So, copy away. Hold a weekly session with your friends (I think this is called a "consumers' cooperative") where you get together and work out what CDs the majority of you would be willing to pay for. Split the costs, and copy them (ok, let's say we fairly share out who keeps originals).

That's exactly what I do. I actually record hundreds of CDs and leave them lying on the ground outside the high school. I figure I have the right to give away music I paid for.In all seriousness, I like these taxes. I don't have a lot of extra money to pay for music, so after paying this tax I can feel good about downloading music. The Canadian courts ruled years ago that the recording industry can't sue people who've paid the tax, so it makes me happy knowing that I'm a law-abiding citizen.

where can independant Canadian artists who are not affiliated with the labels sign up to receive their cut of this tax?

I think you are under the impression that artists see any of this money. This year was the first [canada.com] that any artist has seen any of the collected levy and less than half of what was collected was distributed.

I went to school in Canada to be an audio engineer. I know about the workings of the Canadian recording industry.

SOCAN (the Canadian equivalent of ASCAP/BMI) handles royalty collection and distribution for Canadian music authors. If you're a Canadian composer, songwriter, or lyricist, you must do this to get royalties:1. Apply for membership with SOCAN2. Register your copyrighted works3. Sit back and waitYou don't have to be owned by a record label to get your royalties. Also, SOCAN has arrangements with other performing rights organizations around the world, so if your music is played in the USA, or Germany, or Japan or whatnot, you'll still get royalty payments from SOCAN but on the accounting it states that the money is coming from that territory.

Royalties are only paid to the "writers" and the "publishing company". The "writers" are composed of the songwriter (who does the music) and the lyricist (who writes the words). A songwriter and lyricist can be the same person. Usually it gets split 25% songwriter/25% lyricist/50% publisher respectively, which means that if a composer wants to get more money, they start their own publishing company.

Up until recently, the money collected from the media levy has sat in SOCAN's accounts while writers and publishing companies fought viciously to get it all for themselves. Seems the writers have won; the "private copying royalties" now go 100% to writers by default. This of course doesn't stop publishing contracts from specifying that lots of money goes to the publisher...

By the way, I finished the audio engineer training, said "I don't want to do this as a job" and have just opened a computer repair shop. I'll be selling those taxed CD blanks soon enough...

I'd like to know where this guy does his shopping. Around christmas time you were able to buy spindles of 200 CDs for like 25 bucks CDN at many major retailers. That's 12.5 cents a disk before tax. I don't remember getting CDs that cheap *before* the levy.I have seen no noticeable impact of any levy whatsoever. Blank CDs are still dirt cheap.

Besides, with car audio and portable players all moving toward using memory-based media nowadays anyway, and DVDs offering vastly more storeage for the same price, CDs

Maybe I am. But who fucking cares? 2 cents a disk, 15 cents a disc? If you can't afford $25 bucks for 200 CDRs, then you probably shouldn't be spending $$$ on your internet connection to get all the shit to burn on them to begin with.
I mean come on. No one burns data onto CDs anymore, it's all DVDs. And who burns 200 music CDs in a year, let alone 6 months? That's almost a new CD every day.
I personally have't bought a spindle of CDRs since I got my dvd burner in 2003. And I still have like 400 blanks in

I heard about some people that order cigarettes from Russia because they are so much cheaper than here in the US.

I seriously hope that people do avoid these taxes this way. Perhaps it will give our governments a clue about collecting taxes. All these sales/use/luxury/sin taxes are a PITA for businesses to collect and annoying for consumers to pay. If our governments would consolidate and simplify the tax collection procedures to make it easier on businesses and limit the beauracracy it would be better

In the US, the Federal law regarding chemicals that people put in their bodies is just wrong.Many of the "FDA" approved drugs are horrible, expensive, have side effects up to and including death, etc.

In 5 years, I will be free from having to take FDA approved drugs on a daily basis. The medication that I am on now gives me dry heaves, makes me insane at times, gives me headaches, disturbs my sleep, gives me vertigo to the point that I have almost died in a car accident, and being that it is a relatively ne

Because Canada has postal nazis who aren't afraid to levy an import fee on just about anything coming in the mail. When I was living in the U.S., I could order stuff worth $5,000, and not pay a cent of duy. Now that I live in Canada, I am not suprised when I have to pay 200%+ duty on things ordered from outside Canada.

I got bitten by the copyright board's $25 levy on iPods several years ago. Luckily, it was overturned and Apple was *very* quick to refund my money - it was the only rebate claim I've ever had processed in less than a week.;)

As for the CD tax -- it stinks. I use a dozen or so CDs (and DVDs) for project backups, photos, home movies, and so on. I no longer use a tape-based VCR; It's much nicer to burn timeshifted TV shows to DVD/CD with DivX compression. Why should I have to pay a levy on that?!

When it's reinstated and they're making millions upon millions of dollars per year on a product that isn't even theirs, they'll still insist that the recording industry is dying and it's all because of you downloading/burning scum! "Never mind the fact that we're making a profit on that too".

don't start charging tax on blank DVD's. A few years ago I would of ( and was ) more incensed with the CD tax, since I primarily used them for data backup. These days, with the price of DVD burners and media being so cheap I have bought exactly one 50 pack of CD's in the last six months.My greatest worry is if they somehow manage to bring back the horrid mp3 player tax. That tax was the worst one. They were going to run into mp3 players with more tax in the price then the mp3 player was worth as the storage

I got mad enough before to start dreaming up "piracy booths", where you could burn cds from a "collection" - for free, of course, with your own hands. My understanding is this would be completely legal..

It's legal to copy music in canada, but not legal to make it available to copy, or to give someone else a copy. Thus I can lend someone a CD (without knowledge that they're going to copy it (...looking other way and whistling...)), but not give them a copy or put the MP3s on a ftp server.

Oh yes, and it's perfectly legal to walk into a library with a laptop and snarf their entire collection into mp3s. If they have any music worth snarfing.

The Copyright Board of Canada last week released its proposed tariff for 2007 for the private copying levy. The numbers remain unchanged: 21 cents per CD-R. As prices have dropped, however, the levy now frequently comprises a significant percentage of the retail price. Consider the purchase of 100 blank Maxell CDs. Future Shop retails the 100 CDs for $69.99. The breakdown of this sale is $48.99 for the CDs and $21.00 for the levy (even worse is a current Future Shop deal of 200 blank CD-Rs from HP, which retails for $59.99. The levy alone on this sale is $42.00 (200 CDs x 21 cents/CD) which leaves the consumers paying $17.99 for the CDs and $42.00 for the levy).

This results in a huge distortion in retail pricing when compared to the U.S. market which does not have a levy system. For example, the same Maxell CDs retail for US$34.99 at CompUSA. When you add in the exchange differential, the Canadian cost is just over $40.00. Obviously the price is slightly lower in the US even without the levy (35 cents per CD vs. 40 cents per CD). With the levy, the price increases by another 50 percent.

Given how little Canadians get for their money (the private copying right doesn't cover copying CDs to Apple iPods) is it any wonder that countries such as Australia are considering allowing for such private copying without a levy scheme? The solution in Canada is obvious: either ensure that the levy covers the full panoply of private copying as is the case in France or drop the levy altogether and institute a fair use user right.

Consider the purchase of 100 blank Maxell CDs. Future Shop retails the 100 CDs for $69.99. The breakdown of this sale is $48.99 for the CDs and $21.00 for the levy (even worse is a current Future Shop deal of 200 blank CD-Rs from HP, which retails for $59.99. The levy alone on this sale is $42.00 (200 CDs x 21 cents/CD) which leaves the consumers paying $17.99 for the CDs and $42.00 for the levy).

For example, the same Maxell CDs retail for US$34.99 at CompUSA. When you add in the exchange differential, th

I was quite unhappy about the tax when it was first implemented, but this tax prevents (or should) RIAA style tactics in Canada. Yeah, sure it's another tax, but CD blanks are not that expensive. (Cheap at twice the price, eh?)

It is unfortunate that Geist's site is unreachable. I'd've liked to have RTFA before posting, but hey, this is/.

If I recall, another problem with this levy is that its supposed purpose - to collect funds and give them to Canadian artists is being hoarded by CIRA. Something which isn't supposed to happen. And its taken a long time for artist to get paid if at all (I'm sure the money is only going dispraportionately to more "popular" artist).The other problem with this argument, is that the collection of funds is being used to protect Canadian artists. Frankly, there's only two or three Canadian singers (contemporary)

How can anyone be surprised that a tax is being abused, misused, and poorly managed? (If indeed it is, the article was/.'ed so I haven't a clue what it's claiming.) Especially one driven to fruition by a company!1) Company A claims/lies/stretches-the-truth that X hurts their business.2) Company A gets a tax passed on X that benefits A.3) PROFIT! And lots of it.

I would love to hear a reason why company A should be responsible about the tax; make sure all those "hurt" by X benefit (when A can reap it all)

So if I was a Canadian living in Canada, and am forced to pay this tax, then copying music cds for personal use should be perfectly legitimate, since I've already payed for the music with each blank disk. That's always the problem with this kind of tax. It is implicit acknowledgement and condonement of the behavior that the tax was intended to curb. Especially in this case where the tax is largely going to a non-governmental body. So if the canadian music industry association tries to bring civil suits

If they bring the levy back, means I've paid my levy for the copyrights of my downloaded songs. That means I can give up my iTunes account in favour of a torrent account and get my music that way. Why not? I've paid the "levy", so I no longer in "violation" of fair use - I've paid for the copyright.

When iTunes opened up a Canadian store, I stopped buying pre-recorded CDs. Now I've got to pay an extra levy for my purchased music to put them on media I can use in the car.

Considering that 10% of my CD burning involves music, it's nice to know that such a large portion of the levy is going to the music industry. I can imagine a lot of Canucks leeching even more music just to "stick it to the man."

If it's the same as it was before, it only applies to blank CDs that are specifically designed for CD-Audio use, not bulk (eg. spindle) packs that may or may not be used for music.

More importantly, this levy goes hand-in-hand with the philosophy not of assumed guilt, but of "fair use" that includes sharing. Yes, sharing your tunes is perfectly legal in Canada, as it's simply assumed that people will continue to make copies and mixed CDs for friends, etc. in the new digital world.

If I am purchasing a pack of blank CDs to use as family photo picture storage, family video transferred over from the camcorder and backing up data such as tax records, etc. this tax has no bearing on what I would be using the CDs for. I don't see how they can justify that a percentage of the tax should go back to the recording industry when they cannot prove that the CDs are being used to copy songs. Also - even if I am burning songs or copies of songs that I own the right to (purchased online or an origin

I think this assumed guilt thing is a bit "too much" since it doesn't benefit artists that aren't Canadian (with the exception of those paid through the AMF, which aren't that many in comparison to the rest of the world).

I don't know nearly enough about 'law' but I think it is extremely illogical for the consumer to pay for crime of which they haven't been found guilty. However, this is a 'tax' and isn't a criminal matter. And I am unfamiliar with the Canadian constitution, but I have a feeling they have the same "no taxation without representation" rule that we have in the U.S. And if that's the case, I'd like to know what 'service to the people' is being bought through these taxes? My assumption would be that the services are in the form of musical licenses since this is all about copying music.

These taxes essentially make copying music to canadian-purchased blank CD media legal.

I'm sure this will take a huge team of lawyers and a lot of public outcry to make it happen, but one way or the other, the music industry will have to give something up -- they can't have both a 'tax' and pursue additional civil penaties against individuals at the same time. If a person who downloaded music can show that he did so in order to utilize his rights granted to him by purchasing blank media from Canada, then I doubt there's much more damage that can be claimed. If this idea holds up, I predict a huge increase in the sale of blank CD media from Canada.

Looking closely at the material, this is still in the proposal stage, and there is time to object to it (I just sent in my objection). The actual proposal and the contact information for writing in to object can be found here: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c25022006 -b.pdf [cb-cda.gc.ca]

Speaking as somebody who has dealt with proposals in the public sector before, when you object, make certain that you make a reasoned argument. Point out the flaws in the assumptions behind the levy (such as the fact that not everybody is going to use the media they're taxing for copying music, etc.), and how it makes the levy unfair. Whatever you do, don't make statements about good and evil, or corruption - it's a surefire way to get ignored. Just point out the flaws in the proposal, give concrete examples if you can when you do, and give your name, city, and province/territory.

Sigh. I have never illegally downloaded music. 9 out of 10 CD-Rs I use are for data backup, and occasionally I do make a fair-use copy of a CD I bought.It has been said a thousand times that the revenue losses for piracy are basically made up. Pulled out of thin air. I know, because I was a teenager once. I went to college and lived among other students. The basic fact is that people buy the things that are important to them, and anyone who "pirated" music or games valued their collections so little t

Remove race from the picture, and you are left with the following facts:

1) The poor are more likely to be in jail than the wealthy.
2) A poor person is more likely to be given a jail sentence (or at least, a longer sentence) than a wealthy person who has committed a similar crime.

Wealth can buy better legal representation, simple as that. Now, to touch on race again, a larger percentation of the black population in the US is porr than in the white population. Therefore, a black person is more likely

If that law was passed in the U.S.A., people would be protesting in front of Congress by burning blank CDs on their laptops and tossing them at their representatives.

Yeah, in the same country where we went to war on questionable intelligence and are still there fighting for who the fuck knows what reason. Or in the same country where e-voting fraud could occur and no one could give a shit. Or in the same country where the President authorized wiretaps on American citizens and no one batted an eye. Or perhaps in the same "free" country where protesters are told where they can and cannot protest and are removed for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Right. Like anyone in America gives a fuck about their rights and how they are losing them.

The laws only work in Canada. Take the Blank CDs to the USA and you are subject to american law -- not to mention you just paid extra for blank CDs.

I suppose you could take a bag of dirt from "the land" and spread it on the floor around your computer and then claim you are on "canadian soil" when the police come knockin', but somehow I doubt it would work. Still it would be a good read on Fark.com

"Second, you can only make copies of music that you legally own. For example, you may make a copy of a CD you own and give it to a freind... but your friend cannot make a copy of their copy and give it away."

Are you sure about that? Perhaps they changed the rules recently, but the way it was originally written into the copyright act was that you could make a copy of any musical recording, regardless of whether or not you owned the original, but only if you made the recording for your own personal use. In o

Well in Canada, the taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco are supposed to support the public health care system, so the more bad stuff you do to your body, the more you're (likely) going to use the health system in the long run.It works even better with gas tax going towards road repair.

What I don't like is paying a levy on my CD-R's that goes to recording artists when I'm actually using them to burn porn or hollywood movies... just kidding!:) But you get my drift. I'm OK with a point of sale tax/levy